ANGELINA SCURRY MANOR, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Heineken v. Heineken, 683 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
  …Versen, 347 So. 2d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (defendant “sought no affirmative relief such as for alimony, special equity, attorney fees, or suit money”). Counterclaims also entail requests for affirmative relief.7 See Krasnosky v. Krasnosky, 282 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Even so, filing a compulsory counterclaim was held not to waive a jurisdictional objec [*200] tion in Cumberland Software, Inc. v. Great Am. Mortgage Corp., 507 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Accord Dragor Shipping Corp. v. Uni…
• Royal Indus., Inc. v. Birdsong, 340 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
  …e court’s jurisdiction over them, we would have a situation analogous to Jones v. Denmark. Here, however, appellants filed a general appearance without making a simultaneous attack on the court’s in personam jurisdiction. In Krasnosky v. Krasnosky, 282 So. 2d 186 (1 DCA 1973), this court stated as follows: “As to the question of waiver of jurisdiction by pleading, this has been long ago [*528] settled by our Florida Supreme Court. If the defendant takes some step in the proceeding or files a pleading to the…
• M.S. v. D.C., Jr., 763 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
  …ile entitled to our respect on comity principles, does not prevent the application of an overriding provision of our law, applying a paramount public policy. See generally, Morris v. Kridel, 179 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Krasnosky v. Krasnosky, 282 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). But see Kalusin v. Schwadron, 695 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). As our supreme court has recognized, few policies in the state are more paramount than enforcement of an exercise of a recognized constitutional right to privacy.…

Authorities Cited

• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966)
• Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 221 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)